DILEEP KUMAR OJHA AND 2 OTHERSversusSMT RAMA YADAV AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1460 of 2026

Dileep Kumar Ojha And 2 Others
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

Smt Rama Yadav And 4 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : Kuldeep Maurya, Ramendra Asthana
Counsel for Respondent(s)        :

Court No. - 54
                       HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Shri Ramendra Ashtana, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants with a prayer to
set aside the order dated 17.3.2026 passed by the learned Additional
C.J.M/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court, No.4, Kanpur Nagar in
Original Suit No.77 of 2026 (Smt. Rama Yadav & Ors. vs. Rajendra
Kumar Rajpoot & Ors.) whereby temporary injunction has been granted
in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from interfering with
the use and possession of the plaintiffs over the land in question.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to
by their nomenclature as assigned in the plaint. The appellants are the
defendants and the respondent nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in the
aforesaid suit.

Brief Facts of the Appeal

4. Briefly stated, Respondent-plaintiffs instituted Suit No. 77 of 2026
seeking relief of injunction. In the said suit, an application for temporary
injunction was filed. The learned Trial Court, by order dated 17.03.2026,
allowed the application and granted temporary injunction.

5. Thereafter, the Revisionist-defendants filed an application under Order
XXXIX Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Trial Court,
contending, inter alia, that the order dated 17.03.2026 had been passed ex
parte. The learned Trial Court, after considering the said application, set
aside its earlier order dated 17.03.2026 by subsequent order dated
                                                        FAFO No. 1460 of 2026
                               2


14.08.2026 and fixed the matter for passing a fresh order on the
application for temporary injunction after hearing both parties. The order
dated 14.8.2026 passed by the learned Trial court has been filed
alongwith supplementary affidavit.

6. Despite the order dated 17.03.2026 having already been set aside by the
learned Trial Court, the Revisionist-defendants have challenged the said
order in the present appeal.

7. At the very outset, it is significant to note that this Court is unable to
appreciate the necessity of challenging the order dated 17.03.2026 after
the same had already been set aside by the learned Trial Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant was heard at length. However, the
real grievance sought to be raised in the present appeal could not be
clearly understood. From the submissions made, it appears that the
principal contention of learned counsel is that the learned Trial Court
failed to consider the applicability of Section 10 CPC on the ground that
similar issues are involved in O.S. No. 1589 of 2025, Ganga Sagar Vs.
Vinod Yadav and others, and O.S. No. 1590 of 2025, Ganga Sagar and
another Vs. Vinod Yadav and others. It was further submitted that the
learned Trial Court failed to properly consider whether a prima facie case
was made out before granting temporary injunction by order dated
17.03.2026.

Conclusion

9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
appellants and perused the record, this Court finds that the present appeal
has become infructuous. The very order which is under challenge, i.e.
order dated 17.03.2026, has already been set aside by the learned Trial
Court by its subsequent order dated 14.08.2026. Thus, no effective relief
can now be granted against the order dated 17.03.2026.

10. Once the order dated 17.03.2026 has ceased to exist, the questions
whether the learned Trial Court rightly granted temporary injunction,
whether a prima facie case existed, or whether Section 10 CPC was
applicable, do not survive for consideration in the present appeal. These
questions, if raised before the learned Trial Court, may be considered
                                                                                          FAFO No. 1460 of 2026
                                                                  3


                                    while deciding the application for temporary injunction afresh after
                                    hearing both parties.

                                    11. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed as having
                                    become infructuous.

                                    12. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any
                                    opinion on the merits of the temporary injunction application or on the
                                    applicability of Section 10 CPC. The learned Trial Court shall decide the
                                    pending injunction application, if any, independently, in accordance with
                                    law, without being influenced by any observation made in this judgment.



                                                                                          (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
                                    September 3, 2026
                                    SK




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad